[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Lintian based autorejects

On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:

> Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:17:15PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> I'm not unsympathetic, but I personally don't mind the ftp team being
>> somewhat more proactive than that.  A lot of the bugs that they've
>> marked as rejects are pretty obvious and easy-to-fix bugs, and I'm
>> not sure why the project as a whole should spend time filing bugs
>> about them when the Lintian checks in question have an essentially 0%
>> false positive rate and the fix is fairly obvious.  Even if it's not
>> something that's going to break the package, why not do it right when
>> it's fairly easy to do so?
> Dear Russ and everybody,
> I had a very brief look at the DD-list for the packages with
> unacceptable Lintian tags, and my gut feeling is that it contains a
> lot of unmaintained packages (maybe an UDD expert can
> confirm). Therefore, rejecting uploads is no incentive for them to be
> fixed.

        If they are unmaintained, nothing we do can make the maintaier
 fix things.  At least filing bugs makes the problems visible, and  we
 ensure that the next drive-by upload will actually fix these policy

> With this in mind, I think that Stefano's proposition to implicate the
> QA team in the management of which tag gets in the blacklist makes a
> lot of sense, as it will help the people who will do the hard work of
> orphaning, MIA checking, and bug fixing to prioritise and orgainse
> their efforts.

        Why can't the presence of appropriate bugs help these folks do
 the same thing?

"You boys lookin' for trouble?" "Sure.  Whaddya got?" -- Marlon Brando,
"The Wild Ones"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: